[Box Backup] Quick compare errors (in reply to : Boxbackup Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10)

Christophe christophe at gardon.net
Wed Jul 27 15:48:28 BST 2011


Le 20/07/2011 13:00, boxbackup-request at boxbackup.org spoke thusly:<br>

> Message: 3 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:04:26 +0100 (BST) From: Chris 
> Wilson <chris at qwirx.com> Subject: Re: [Box Backup] Quick compare 
> errors To: Box Backup <boxbackup at boxbackup.org> Message-ID: 
> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1107200101350.17375 at chris-desktop.fen.aptivate.org> 
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Hi Christophe,

Hi Chris,

First of all, I'm sorry to reply just now: my spam filter quarantined 
some emails by mistake.


> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Christophe wrote:
>> In order to verify the smooth functioning, I run every night a verification
>> script using the "Query Tool" (quick-compare).
>> Regularly (every 4 or 5 days), I see abnormal errors with the verification of
>> old files: "WARNING: Local file 'xxx' has different contents to store file
>> 'xxx'."
> Could it be that the file is in use or has been recently modified at the
> time of the last backup?


The backup of these files is done in two steps.
First, I sync my Windows computer (when idle) to a samba local server.
Then BoxBackup backups local samba server to a BB remote server.


>> The only cure I know is to refresh the local file date to re-initiate the
>> backup update on the server.
> If so, then it should be fixed automatically at the next backup without
> you having to do anything, as long as it is no longer in use and has not
> changed for at least MinimumFileAge seconds.

Files reported in error by the comparison are old (more than a month) 
and have not been used.
Because of the backup in two stages, I do not think these files can be 
locked.


>> But this tinkering does not satisfy me because it changes the date of local
>> files and it clutters the "old files" backup section.
> Yes, it should not be necessary, I agree.
>
>> I wonder if this bug is known on my version "0.11~rc8~r2714-1~bpo60" and
>> if there is a better way to address it.
> It's not a known bug, but if you cannot explain it by the logic above,
> could you help us to debug it by running bbackupd with the -V option and
> reporting what it says about the file that later fails on compare?

I removed the 'touch' of my script to see if a file comparison error 
today will be tomorrow.
I'm afraid to remember that these errors are not corrected and 
accumulate, but I could re-start the demon bbackupd with-V as suggested 
with good reason.


>> For example, is there a command to force the update of the backup to a
>> single local file?
> Not currently, sorry. Even if there was, it would also "clutter the old
> files" as you complain about above.


Absolutely true: I had not thought about. :-(

Thank you sincerely for your responses Chris.
I will return to mail the log if necessary.


Regards.


>
> Cheers, Chris.
> -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <chris+sig at qwirx.com> 
> Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL 
> Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your 
> software |

--
Christophe GARDON
NB: L'omission des accents est deliberee.





More information about the Boxbackup mailing list